win98 vs win95 with TCP/IP

Richard Mann rich at
Sat Oct 10 20:50:16 GMT 1998

>I have been disappointed that I can't use Linux+Samba as an
>alternative to a Win9x or NT server for our GP medical practice.
>The software we need runs in win9x.
>We crave stability.  But Linux+Samba is just much slower as a file

	This is not my experience at all. We are using Infomagic's
	Workgroup Server, which is not the latest and greatest
	(based on RedHat 4.1), but we serve up 60 GB to both PC's
	and Mac's at the same time, with good stability and speed.

	I had one Linux server running this that I could also boot
	in NT mode, for backwards compatibility with archive tapes.
	The same hardware gave me better performance running Linux
	than NT.

	InfoMagic claims the WGS is thoroughly debugged, and that
	seems to be the case. It also has good gui admin tools. The
	only significant tweak we made was to increase the maximum
	number of inodes and files, with a script run from rc.local to

		echo 4096 > /proc/sys/kernel/file-max	
		echo 12288 > /proc/sys/kernel/inode-max
	You might want to check it out at .

	Now one thing I should mention, we do have one NT server
	in-house, and it is the acting domain controller for the
	people logging in from PC's. [Samba can't be the domain
	controller yet, can it?]

     //\     --rich
    //  \    
   // /  \   Richard Mann -- System Administrator
  // / /  \  P u b l i c a t i o n  S e r v i c e s,  I n c. 
  \\  / / /  Champaign, Illinois, USA 61821 (217) 398-2060 x36
   \\  / /     
    \\  / 

More information about the samba mailing list